Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The principle of resjudicata is rooted on public policy that a party will not vex on the same cause of action, a suit or proceedings, if it is decided on merit between the same parties or the persons claiming under them and it had become final. The court that applies the principle shall exercise caution that there had been a particular adjudication which would become final and cannot be re-agitated. If there had been a finding that the property was not a Public Premise to which provision of the Act were applicable or if there was a finding that the defendant was himself the owner or his possession had become adverse, an ejectment action treating the same property as public premises would be barred. In other words, the bar of resjudicata would operate against a point raised and decided or a defendant which ought to have been raised and failed to do. It cannot extend to the situation which the previous adjudication does not 3 of 6 refer to. If a petition for ejectment, therefore, filed by reference to the property as having been granted in lease to the husband in the year 1972-1973 and the Estate Officer adverted to it, to define the character of possession for the wife who continued after the life time of the husband, the principle that would become applicable would be one of estoppel, that is, governed under Section 117 of the Indian Evidence Act. Even the possession held independently could be altered, if a party enters into an agreement of lease and he would be bound by such admission by the representation that he makes by the alteration of character that he obtains to himself. A person who enters upon the property without knowledge of who the owner was or a person who asserts his own rights could well seek to legitimize his own holding by attorning a tenancy to a person whom he was prepared to recognize as landlord. If the Canal Department, therefore, was seeking ejectment making reference to the lease in favour of the 4 of 6 petitioner's husband and the execution of the said document is proved, there is no scope for challenging the claim to ejectment by reference to the dismissal of the previous proceedings.

5. The revision petition is meritless and is dismissed."

In the aforesaid order, the petitioners had taken the plea of res judicata in order to challenge the initiation of the proceedings at the instance of the Forest Department on the ground that the similar proceedings were initiated by the Canal Department against the petitioners were earlier dismissed. This Court while dismissing the revision petition made a specific observation that "if the Canal Department, therefore, was seeking ejectment making reference to the lease in favour of the petitioner's husband and the 5 of 6 execution of the said document is proved, there is no scope for challenging the claim to ejectment by reference to the dismissal of the previous proceedings". Meaning thereby, the proceedings initiated at the instance of the Forest Department were not quashed and were allowed to be continued. Both the Courts below have found that the petitioners are in unauthorized possession over the land which is recorded in the revenue record belonging to the quasi-government.